Late night summary

• The gay marriage bill has survived its greatest threat (so far) in its passage through parliament after Labour MPs joined with Lib Dems and pro gay marriage Conservatives to vote against an amendment tabled by Tim Loughton. The amendment would have extended civil partnerships to heterosexual couples and, although Loughton insisted he was not trying to derail the gay marriage bill, many MPs feared that his amendment would have precisely that effect. Yesterday it seemed Labour would vote in favour of Loughton's amendment. But at lunchtime Yvette Cooper said she would be advising Labour MPs to abstain (technically it was a free vote), and this evening the party decided to advise MPs to vote against after the government said it was in danger of losing. In return for Labour's support, Maria Miller, the culture secretary, said that the review that she promised into civil partnerships would start immediately. There will be further votes in the Commons tomorrow, when the bill will also get a third reading, but the government should win those easily. The next big threat will be in the Lords, where many peers are opposed to the legislation. But the Commons passed the bill at second reading with a majority of 225 and tonight Loughton's amendment was defeated by a majority of 305. The size of these majorities makes it hard to see how the Lords can block the bill.

• Miller has hinted that the review could lead to civil partnerships being abolished. Her aides have been briefing this line to journalists. (See 8.07pm.) In the chamber Miller did not explicitly float this idea, although she said that it was important "to understand what the demand is amongst those individuals who might be looking to undertake such a contractual arrangement [heterosexual civil partnership]" and that "what we are not trying to do in this bill is to create two tiers of marriage". But Labour's Kate Green indicated that her party would not accept the abolition of civil partnerships.

[A review] would ensure that they are not perceived simply as some sort of residual arrangement pending everyone moving to same-sex marriage. We can expect that many existing civil partners will want their civil partnerships in fact to continue. They don’t want to regard the history of the past nine years as a history of second best.

The fate of civil partnerships could now become an issue in the 2015 general election.

• It has emerged that two cabinet ministers, Iain Duncan Smith and Owen Paterson, voted with the anti gay marriage camp in the first vote of the evening, on a "conscience clause" for registrars. (See 9pm.)

• Cameron has written a letter to Conservative party members saying that he would never allow anyone around him to "sneer" at them. "I am proud of what you do," he wrote. "And I would never have around me those who sneered or thought otherwise." The full text of his letter is here.

MPs are now voting on New Clause 16 (NC16), the amendment tabled by Maria Miller calling a review of civil partnerships. NC16 says the review will take place after five years, but Miller has said that, in line with the Labour amendment, it will actually start immediately.

Herbert says some supporters of the Loughton amendment are proclaiming equality for the first time. It "sticks in the craw" to be lectured by them on equality, he says. Some of the MPs who have signed the Loughton amendment opposed the original civil partnership legislation. One of them even called it a "buggers' muddle".

Nick Herbert, the Conservative former policing minister, is speaking in the chamber now. He says the government does not know how much actual support there actually is for heterosexual civil partnership.

Supporters of the Tim Loughton amendment have called for symmetry, he says. But the bill will not create symmetry, because gay couples will still not be able to get married in church.

Passing the Loughton amendment, "for which there does not actually appear to be a genuine demand", could put the bill at risk, he says. It would give peers further grounds for opposing the bill.

Loughton says the £4bn cost quoted by the government is "completely spurious". He says he asked the House of Commons library to produce figures about the likely cost of his proposal. It said the cost would be in the tens of millions, not in the billions.

Mark Field, a Conservative, says the government's decision to accept the Labour amendment means that Loughton has "won most of his battle".

Loughton says he would be delighted if Field were right.

Labour's Kate Green implied her amendment could lead to proposals coming forward before the bill finishes its passage through parliament, he says. But Loughton says he does not think the review will conclude this quickly.

Back in the Commons, Loughton is still speaking. He says people have to fill in forms saying whether they are married or in a civil partnership. This means they have to reveal that they are gay. Some people might not want to do this, he says.

In France heterosexuals are allowed to enter civil partnerships. They are less likely to dissolve than marriages, he says.

Turning away from the debate, I see that David Cameron has sent out a message to all Conservative party members in the light of the "swivel-eyed loons" controversy. Here's an extract.

I’ve been a member of the Conservative Party for 25 years. Some time after I joined I became Chairman of my local branch and was one of the volunteers dedicated to getting Conservatives elected to the local council. Since then I have met thousands and thousands of party members. We’ve pounded pavements together, canvassed together and sat in make-shift campaign headquarters together, from village halls to front rooms. We have been together through good times and bad. This is more than a working relationship; it is a deep and lasting friendship.

Ours is a companionship underpinned by what we believe: that everyone should be able to get on in life if they’re willing to work hard; that we look after those who cannot help themselves; that it’s family and community and country that matter; that a dose of common sense is worth more than a ton of dry political theory; that Britain is a great and proud nation that can be greater still.

Above all, we Conservatives believe you change things not by criticising from your armchair but by getting out and doing. Across the country, at charity events and voluntary organisations, you will find people from our Party quietly doing their bit. Time and again, Conservative activists like you stand for duty, decency and civic pride.

That’s why I am proud to lead this party. I am proud of what you do. And I would never have around me those who sneered or thought otherwise. We are a team, from the parish council to the local association to Parliament, and I never forget it.

Tim Loughton, the Conservative former children's minister, is speaking now. He says "an awful lot of rubbish" has been said about tonight's vote. There have been claims of leadership bids and wrecking amendments.

The government's amendment is designed to kick this into the long grass, he says.

He says Nick Clegg has urged the Lib Dems to vote against Loughton's amendment, even though it is party policy. We've been here before with the Lib Dems, he says.

The Government agreed to review the future of civil partnerships as it tried to head off a wrecking amendment tabled by Conservative opponents of gay marriage. The rebels proposed extending civil partnerships to heterosexual couples.

The Labour Opposition and the Liberal Democrats agreed to support the wholesale review as they joined forces with Mr Cameron in an attempt to defeat the amendment. A senior Tory source said the review would be launched very shortly with a view to completing it by the time of the 2015 general election and would look at all options, including scrapping the ceremonies altogether. The source told The Independent: "How civil partnerships work and whether they continue to exist, the whole thing would be up for grabs."

Margot James, a Conservative, asks why Miller's amendment says the review of civil partnerships should take place after five years.

Miller says the amendment is worded to allow an immediate review to take place. She is "delighted" to see that Labour agree. The review will start immediately, she says. She will accept the Labour amendment, although she claims it is unnecessary because she says her amendment allows an early review to take place.

Miller says that if the government were to accept the Loughton amendment, other pieces of legislation would have to be amended.

It would be wrong for the government to do that without conducting preparatory work.

Mike Freer, a Conservative, says civil partnerships do not offer the same pension rights as marriage. Survivor pension rights only apply from the moment civil partnerships came into force, not from the moment the person joined the relevant pension scheme, he says.

Miller accepts this, but she says she is making a wider point. Allowing heterosexual people to enter civil partnership could create pressure for other anomalies to be addressed.

Maria Miller's speech

She says that allowing heterosexuals to enter civil partnerships could lead to other reforms, such as widowers getting the same pension rights as widows. That is why the costs of the Tim Loughton amendment could rise so high.

Tim Loughton intervenes to say the government does not have any proper figures on this.

Miller says this makes her case. That is why it is important to review civil partnerships.

Early evening summary

• Opponents of the gay marriage bill have lost three votes, by large majorities. But the debate, and the votes showed, showed that many Tories remain deeply critical of the government's plan.

• Ministers have indicated that they will support the Labour amendment saying that a review of civil partnerships should start immediately. Earlier Yvette Cooper said that, provided the government supports the amendment, she will advise Labour MPs not to vote for the Tim Loughton amendment, which is widely seen as a wrecking amendment. This should ensure that the Loughton amendment fails (although we won't know for sure until MPs vote at 10pm.) But government sources have also indicated that the Tories may use the review of civil partnerships to push the case for their abolition. (See 6.32pm.)

David Burrowes has lost again. By 321 votes to 163 votes, a majority of 158, MPs rejected his proposed New Clause 8, an attempt to beef up the section in the bill saying that people cannot be penalised for not conducting a gay marriage.

Another victory for the pro gay marriage camp. By 339 votes to 148 votes, a majority of 191, they defeated Burrowes' attempt to make believing that marriage is between a man and a woman a "protected characteristic of religion" under the Equality Act 2010.

MPs are now voting on a second amendment tabled by David Burrowes, New Clause 6 (NC6). This is the one saying that believing that marriage is between a man and a woman should be a "protected characteristic of religion" under the Equality Act 2010. (See 5.18pm.)

David Burrowes wound up the debate. He said he would withdraw New Clause 1 (the one saying schools should not have to teach marriage in a way "contrary to the designated religious character of the school" - see 4.49pm) because the government has said it will reconsider its guidance on this. But he said he wanted to put his New Clause 3 to a vote. NC3 is the one saying registrars should be allowed to refuse to conduct a gay marriage on the grounds of "conscientious objection".

He says the government has tabled an amendment to ensure that hospital or university chaplains cannot be sacked for refusing to conduct a gay marriage. And it has tabled an amendment saying the government must change the rules to allow gay marriages in the Church in Wales if that is what the Church in Wales demands.

But he says that his view that registrars should not be given special protection, as suggested by David Burrowes, hardened during the bill's committee stage.

Chris Bryant, the shadow Home Office minister, is winding up for Labour now.

He starts by paying tribute to David Burrowes. Bryant says he disagrees with Burrowes on this bill, but he enjoyed working with Burrowes on a panel discussing how to tackle homophobia in schools.

Bryant says he believes in equality under the law. Religious belief should be as protected as sexual orientation, he says. He is worried about some of the Burrowes amendments because they upset this balance.

Hateful speech towards gays and lesbian is still alive and well, he says. Gay and lesbian teenagers are six times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexual teenagers, he says.

Some of the Tories speaking in the debate, like Sir Gerald Howarth, have confused teaching with preaching. "Not much teaching should be preaching," he says.

According to the Daily Mail's James Chapman, the government is going to accept the Labour amendment on civil partnerships. Labour wants the review of civil partnerships promised by Maria Miller to take place immediately, not after five years as originally planned.

But it looks as thought some Tories might try to use the review to ditch civil partnerships altogether.

Simon Hughes, the Lib Dem deputy leader, is speaking. He says that he speaks as someone who has "struggled with sexuality since [he] was a teenager" and who is chair of governors at a Church of England primary school.

He says the churches do not yet think there are enough safeguards in the bill to protect religious teaching in schools.

The churches do not think we are quite there yet with the protections necessary, and therefore I'm sympathetic to the amendments.

He says he agrees that teachers should tell pupils that all people, gay and straight, are of equal worth. But Christian teachers should also be able to say that the church has a specific view of what constitutes marriage, he says.

Nick Herbert, the gay Conservative former Home Office minister, said that New Clause 2 tabled by David Burrowes would allow a registrar to refuse to conduct a gay marriage on grounds of conscience.

If it is wrong for a registrar to turn someone away on the grounds that they are black or of an ethnic minority from an application to have their wedding, why would it be right for a registrar to turn away a gay person. That is the the essence of the question.

David Burrowes intervened to say that his amendment would not stop a gay couple getting married in a registry office; it would just stop a registrar being forced to conduct the service. But Labour's Chris Bryant intervened to say that many registry offices only have one registrar. In those offices, under Burrowes' amendment, a gay couple could be refused a wedding.

There is some basis for the figure, but it has nothing to do with the cost of heterosexual couples opting for a civil partnership. The figure was cited by Steve Webb, the pensions minister, as the possible cost of wholesale reforms to pensions system (involving widowers getting the same treatment as widows, for example) that could come about if the Tim Loughton amendment were to lead to pressure for further reform.

David Lammy, the Labour MP, said that black immigrants in the 1950s, like his father, were regularly subjected to explicit racism. People would put up signs saying: "No blacks, no Irish, no dogs." But parliament voted to make that behaviour illegal. Lammy said the gay marriage bill was similar, because it could not be right for teachers to say gay marriage was wrong.

Lammy also mentioned the slave trade. For 20 years the Commons was split over whether slaves were humans or were chattel, he said. That was why this bill was a "noble fight", he said, and MPs should reject the calls for exemptions proposed by Burrowes and others.

What the government is refusing to recognise that they are not legislating this bill to redefine marriage in a vacuum. They are legislating in a culture which has been so coloured by political correctness that people like Adrian Smith, mild-mannered people expressing reasonable beliefs in moderate tones, are treated like villains. The outlandish views of the loony left of the 1980s, of Lambeth councils, have now become embedded in high places. And in typical leftish fashion, I have to say. All those who disagree with these views are treated with contempt in order to marginalise their points of view.

Sarah Wollaston, the Conservative, intervenes to say that victims of homophobic bullying in schools are the people who are being marginalised.

Edward Leigh, a Conservative, is speaking now. He is defending an amendment (New Clause 6 - NC6) saying that a belief that marriage is between a man and a woman should be a protected characteristic of religious belief under the Equality Act 2010.

Chris Bryant, the Labour frontbencher (and a former vicar), intervenes to say that this is unnecessary because other religious beliefs, such as belief in virgin birth or transubstantiation, are not specified in this way in the Equality Act.

For the European Court of Human Rights to compel a religious body or its adherents to conduct a religious marriage of a same-sex couple would require a legal miracle much greater than the parting of the Red Sea.

Doughty says he does not believe that there is a need for the protections of the kind demanded by Burrowes.

Stephen Williams, the Lib Dem MP, says he was the MP who defended the idea of Catholic surgeons being able to refuse to conduct abortions but not Catholic registrars being able to refuse to conduct gay marriages when the bill was in committee. Tim Loughton referred to this earlier. (See 4.57pm.) Williams says the point he was making was that performing abortions is only a small part of what surgeons do, but conducting marriages is central to the work of registrar.

David Burrowes says that when the bill was in committee, some MPs in favour of it said that if teachers did not approve of gay marriage, they should get another job. For them, it's not a gay marriage bill but a compulsory redundancy bill, he says.

Tim Loughton, the Conservatives, intervenes to say those backing the bill are promoting a hierarchy of conscientious objection. They are in favour of of Catholic surgeons being allowed to opt out of having to perform state-funded abortions, but not in favour of Catholic registrars being able to opt out of performing state-funded gay marriages.

Burrowes also accepts that the Conservative party is divided on this. But so is the nation, he says, and so on this legislation the party is showing that it is "very much in touch with the nation".

David Burrowes, the Conservative MP opposed to gay marriage, is opening the debate.

He has tabled amendments designed to ensure that the bill does not discriminate against teachers and others opposed to gay marriage on the grounds of principle. For example New Clause 1 says the bill should not lead to schools having to promote a view of marriage "contrary to the designated religious character of the school".

Labour has circulated an email sent by the Tory MP Nick Herbert to colleagues backing the Labour amendment on civil partnerships. Here's an extract.

You will be aware of the amendments tabled by Tim Loughton and others (new Clauses 10 & 11) to extend civil partnerships to heterosexual couples.

I have no issue with the principle of this proposal, but I am very worried that adding this measure to the Bill will create significant new difficulties in the Lords. You may be aware of Stonewall’s concern that the Bill “is not an appropriate vehicle to progress such proposals” and “risks being delayed by proposed amendments which would widen the Bill beyond its clearly defined purpose”.

I therefore believe that the Government’s proposal for a review (Gov NC16 and Gov 51 – 54), and Labour’s manuscript amendment (a) to ensure that the review is immediate, are a sensible way forward.

I appreciate that many colleagues would like to express their support for equality and vote for civil partnerships for heterosexual couples, and that some have backed the amendment for principled reasons. However, a large number of MPs who oppose the Bill appear ready to support the amendment for different reasons, and this reinforces to my concern about its effect.

I would urge you, as a supporter of the Bill, to vote FOR an immediate review of civil partnerships (Gov NC16 and Gov 51-54 and Lab manuscript amendment (a)) and AGAINST the Loughton amendment (New Clauses 10 & 11). I appreciate that many of you might be inclined to abstain on the Loughton amendment, but please be aware that if the opponents of the Bill largely vote for the amendment, it will be necessary to secure a majority against it.

MPs are debating the programme motion now. Hugh Robertson, the culture minister, moved it in a speech lasting about 60 seconds, and then Chris Bryant, speaking for Labour, simply said he agreed. But then Peter Bone, the Conservative, stood up to say he was opposed to the programme motion. Sir Tony Baldry, a Conservative, is speaking now.

Gay marriage debate - Timetable

4.30pm: Debate on the timetable motion. This could last up to 45 minutes, and may be followed by a vote. Then there will be a debate on the first batch of amendments.

7pm: MPs vote on amendments debated in the first section of the debate. They will then start debating the next slug of amendments, including Tim Loughton's one calling for civil partnerships to be extended to heterosexuals.

10pm: MPs vote on the amendments debate in the second half of the debate.

Afternoon summary

Before the gay marriage debate starts, here's an afternoon summary.

• William Hague, the foreign secretary, has told MPs that no options are off the table if Syria's ruling regime refuses to seriously engage in an international conference to broker peace in the country.

• The Conservative party board has rejected a call for a investigation into the claim that Lord Feldman, the party's co-chair, called activists "swivel-eyed loons". Feldman denies making the comment, and the board accepted his denial.

• Lancashire police have confirmed that they search Nigel Evans' office in the House of Commons in connection with their investigation into allegations of rape and sexual assault. John Bercow, the Commons Speaker, said that he approved the search after personally inspecting the warrant. Evans denies wrong-doing and has not been arrested.

By 59 to 25%, voters think he is supporting gay marriage for political reasons, rather than because he thinks it is the right thing to do. Tories divide evenly.

As a result, Cameron is in the worst possible place, being thought to fight a battle that few people think matters that much, for reasons that few people respect, and reinforcing his party's reputation for division. These things are damaging his political prospects far more than his backing for a reasonably popular change to the law is boosting it.

I think it’s also fair to say that Mr Loughton has little reason to do Mr Cameron or his team any favours. Mr Cameron’s actions, and those of his allies since the reshuffle, have put Mr Loughton on the “enemies” list.

It’s a telling example of a wider problem for Mr Cameron and his people, who have never quite known what to do about enemies. They lack the Blair-like overwhelming popularity needed to sweep them aside. Since Andy Coulson’s departure, they’ve lacked either the skill or the stomach needed for Brown-style targeted killings. At worst, they appear to project lordly indifference to the petty concerns and angers of the little people in Parliament and their party, attempting neither to intimidate nor charm.

Three per cent of gay men and 5 per cent of bisexual men have attempted suicide, compared to 0.4 per cent of all men. HIV rates have also been on the rise amongst gay men, with 3,100 gay and bisexual men being diagnosed with HIV in 2010 (the highest figure to date). In that year, gay men accounted for 45 per cent of new HIV diagnoses.

A traditional conservative view would suggest that extending the institution of marriage could help tackle these issues. As marriage acts as a "commitment device", encouraging fidelity and discouraging high-risk behaviour, the social incentives of marriage could only be beneficial to gay people. By making clear that gay people are fully equal members of society, equal marriage could also help to reduce the level of alienation felt by some young gay people.

In the Commons William Hague has just said that the decision not to dedicate a day of the Queen's speech debate to foreign affairs was Labour's, not the coalition's. He implied that Labour did not want a foreign affairs debate because it did not want to be questioned about its stance on an EU referendum.

I wish to report to the House that the rooms of a Member were searched yesterday pursuant to a warrant issued by the Circuit Judge in Preston Crown Court on 16 May. The warrant related to the investigation of a serious arrestable offence.

I should remind Members, as did my predecessor in 2008, that the precincts of Parliament are not a haven from the law. In accordance with the Protocol issued by my predecessor on 8 December 2008 on the execution of search warrants within the precincts of the House of Commons, I considered the warrant personally and was advised by Officers of the House that there were no lawful grounds on which it would be proper to refuse its execution.

In addition, as provided for in paragraph 6 of the Protocol, I consulted the Attorney General and the Solicitor General who concurred in this advice. I am very grateful to them. The Clerk of the House was kept fully informed throughout, and also concurred.

The Serjeant at Arms and Speaker’s Counsel were present when the search was conducted. Undertakings have been given by the police officers as to the handling of any Parliamentary material until such time as any issue of privilege is resolved.

The investigation is continuing and it would not be right to comment further. I will not take questions on my statement.

The Church of England has come out against the Tim Loughton amendment. As the Telegraph reports, it said this in a briefing for MPs.

We believe that this would introduce further confusion about the place of marriage in society.

We remain unconvinced that the introduction of such an option [heterosexual civil partnership] would satisfy a genuine and widespread public need, other than for those who pursue 'equality' as an abstract concept.

There has been little public evidence to suggest that significant numbers of opposite-sex couples who choose not to marry would opt instead for a civil partnership.

We are not convinced that any clear new social good is created by this further innovation in civil partnerships and therefore they are best left as they are at a time when considerable uncertainty is being caused by the fundamental change in the nature of marriage.

• Labour has come to the rescue of the gay marriage bill by signalling that its MPs will not support the amendment tabled by the Conservative MP Tim Loughton saying the bill should include provisions allowing heterosexuals to enter civil partnerships. The surprise announcement came from Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary and equalities minister, on the World at One and it means that Loughton's amendment, which was widely seen as a wrecking amendment, will probably be defeated. MPs have a free vote, but originally Labour indicated that its MPs would support Loughton. However Cooper said that the party was going to instead table a rival amendment and that, as a result, she would be advising MPs not to support Loughton's.

We would urge the government, we would urge the Liberal Democrats, we would urge backbenchers of all parties to support this [Labour] amendment as a way of allowing the bill to progress without the Tim Loughton amendment but also allowing an immediate consultation to start on the opposite-sex civil partnerships. And on that basis, we would recommend to people not to support the Tim Loughton amendment, but we do need a sensible response from the government as well.

Maria Miller, the culture secretary, has already tabled an amendment to the bill (New Clause 16, or NC16) saying there should be a review of civil partnership legislation after five years. The Labour amendment is an amendment to NC16. It says the review should take place as soon as possible, not after after years, and that it should include a full public consultation.

• Ministers have urged MPs not to support the Loughton amendment.Nick Clegg said he was not in favour of it because it could "derail" the whole bill, and his opposition to it is easy to understand. Tories in the coalition, like Miller, have also been talking up the disadvantages of the amendment, but their motives were rather harder to fathom. Perhaps they were raising fears about the £4bn cost of the amendment because they wanted the bill to pass with minimum difficult. Or perhaps they were exaggerating the drawbacks because they were looking for a possible excuse to drop the bill. If that was the intention, Cooper's move has probably averted that possibility.

• Loughton, who is opposed to gay marriage, has denied claims that his amendment is a "wrecking amendment" (ie, one intended to undermine the bill as a whole). This is what he told the BBC.

A lot of people from all parties are supporting my amendment who are passionate supporters of the bill. Ironically, if my amendment goes through, which will address now, I think, a serious flaw the bill introduces, it will make the bill less unpalatable. So actually, it’s not a very good wrecking amendment if it’s supposed to be a wrecking amendment.

But Stonewall, the gay rights group, rejected this claim. (See 10.23am.) And Nick Herbert, the gay Conservative former minister who is a strong supporter of the bill, also said he saw the amendment as a wrecking amendment.

There are definitely supporters of [the bill] who intended for it to derail the legislation and that’s a huge concern for people like me who are not opposed to the principle of it, and to Stonewall and all those who are urging support for this bill. I would urge members of Parliament to think very carefully before joining forces with them.

On the World at One Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary and the shadow equalities minister, has said that Labour will table its own amendment on civil partnerships. It will be calling for a review.

On that basis, she will be advising Labour MPs not to vote for the Tim Loughton amendment, she said.

That's an important development. It means the prospect of the Loughton amendment being passed (and, consequentially, the bill being wrecked) has now almost certainly now been lifted.

I don't want anything to interfere with the central purpose of this legislation ... The bottom line is that I will do whatever I judge is best to safeguard the bill and to make sure that it does not become hijacked by those whose ulterior motive is actually to discredit or to derail the legislation.

Number 10 lobby briefing - Summary

10 Downing Street. Photograph: Alamy

Sometimes the prime minister's spokesman uses the lobby briefing to deliver a clear, newsy message to journalists. And sometimes he uses the briefing to block questions, shut down lines of inquiry and avoid conceding anything embarrassing. Today we were firmly in the second camp. I'm not particularly complaining - press officers are expected to do this - but it did make the whole encounter rather frustrating.

Here are the main points.

• David Cameron will be voting against the Tim Loughton amendment, the prime minister's spokesman said. But the spokesman refused to rule out using the amendment, if it gets passed, as an excuse for dropping the bill, and he refused an invitation to say that the government was willing to use the Parliament Act to get the legislation through the House of Lords. The spokesman kept stressing that the amendment would introduce "complexities" and that he did not want to speculate on the outcome of an vote that has not yet taken place. Nothing he said suggested that there is a strong likelihood that the bill will be dropped, but equally the possibility was left open. Separately the BBC's Norman Smith says that he's been told that passing the amendment would lead to the gay marriage legislation being delayed until after 2015.

Govt sources say Gay Marriages will be delayed until after general election if "civil partnership" amendment passed

Ministers have said that allowing heterosexual couples to obtain civil partnerships, as the Loughton amendment proposes, would increase the cost because of greater pension liabilities to the state. But they have also said that very few heterosexual couples actually want civil partnerships. At the briefing the spokesman was unable to reconcile these two apparently contradictory arguments.

• Cameron will not discuss Google's tax record with Eric Schmidt, the Google chief executive, at a meeting of Cameron's business advisory group this afternoon, Number 10 suggested. Schmidt is a member of the group and is expected to attend the meeting. Asked if Cameron would raise the subject of the tax paid by Google, the spokesman said Cameron would use the meeting to brief the group on his plans to raise tax transparency at the G8 summit. The spokesman sidestepped questions about whether it was appropriate to have a company with Google's record on the group, and he refused to say whether Cameron agreed with Margaret Hodge's description of the firm as "evil". "We do not talk about individuals' or individual companies' tax affairs," said the spokesman (prompting one journalist to remind him that Cameron was happy to talk about Jimmy Carr's tax avoidance). Asked if Cameron agreed with Ed Miliband, who said that Britain should act unilaterally to tackle aggressive corporate tax avoidance if international agreement could not be reached, the spokesman said that Cameron was "optimistic" about getting an international agreement.

• Cameron stands by Lord Feldman and what Feldman has said about not calling Tory activists "swivel-eyed loons", the spokesman said.

I'm back from the lobby briefing. If I manage to recover from the catatonia induced by 45 minutes of listening to cautious, evasive and non-productive answers, I'll post a summary.

But the key point is that Downing Street are not ruling out pulling the gay marriage bill if the Tim Loughton amendment gets passed (although they are not actually implying that this will happen either).

There has to be a chance, however, that we won’t win the next election. Should we fall short again, I give an undertaking that I won’t sign a second coalition agreement until after it has been endorsed by a vote of the whole Tory membership. I will not sign any coalition deal that I don’t think could be approved by the people who do so much for the Conservative Party — delivering leaflets, knocking on doors, raising party funds. A grassroots ratification of any coalition agreement would also ensure the party in the country felt it had some ownership of a second coalition. It wouldn’t just be seen as my project or the plaything of a few politicians at Westminster.

It was also a family experience that shaped my outlook. My brother Charles, who was gay, died from Aids in 1993. Society was a far less accepting place for gay men such as him. I think how much better his life would have been had there been greater acceptance of publicly acknowledged stable same-sex relationships. In the two decades since much has changed. But I think this additional step, of extending marriage to all, is important both symbolically and practically. And it is something which most – though I appreciate not all – gay men and women want.

Some argue that we are tampering with marriage and that what we are doing is hardly Conservative. I would argue that Conservatism always meant both the disposition to preserve as well as the readiness to reform. Enabling the recognition of committed relationships is perfectly consistent with the Conservative belief that commitment underpins society. We do not seek to change marriage but to spread it.

In a post for ConservativeHomeLord Ashcroft, the former Conservative deputy chairman, says his party is in "what threatens to become a spiral of irrelevance". Here's an extract.

This sort of thing - the habit of distracting ourselves from what matters - has got to stop. The Conservatives were elected, albeit in insufficient numbers, to do a job. We hope to be elected in two years' time in rather greater numbers to implement a Tory manifesto in full. But we don't look as if either of those things is our priority. We need to pull ourselves out of what threatens to become a spiral of irrelevance. Here are some observations about our predicament.

Conservative Party members are decent, patriotic, industrious, generous, tolerant, charitable, open-minded, good-humoured, public-spirited and - if you discount their willingness to deliver leaflets and knock on doors in all weathers - sane. If someone at the top of the party suggested otherwise it would be worse than regrettable. At the same time, the outrage of some other senior Conservatives at what someone close to David Cameron may or may not have said about Tory activists would be more persuasive were it not for the things they themselves say to journalists about their own leader. I've often argued that it's counter-productive in politics to insult your opponent; it is disappointing to have to point out that the same applies to our own side. Let's all be a bit more civil.

Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the gay rights group Stonewall, wants MPs to vote against the Tim Loughton amendment.

He did not put it quite as bluntly as that, but, in an interview just now with BBC News, he made it very clear what he thinks.

Anyone who is thoughtful in the House of Commons - and we've seen these attempts with this sort of legislation before - will reflect that the people who are moving the critical amendment are not supporters of equality for gay people ... We think it would be a terrible pity if this piece of legislation, for which there is a lot of support in the country, and for which there was support from 400 MPs of all parties, it would terrible if this piece of legislation got bogged down quite unnecessarily because people from perhaps all sides of the House of Commons were playing politics with the issue.

Essentially it's saying that Scotland would not be able to afford to bail out its banks if anything went wrong and that savers could lose money.

Here are some key extracts. This is what the paper says about the respective size of the Scottish banking sector.

Scotland’s financial sector currently enjoys the best of both worlds: its size and historic strengths and specialism helps to create wealth and jobs in Scotland; while being part of the UK gives regulators, firms and individuals confidence in managing financial risk. If Scotland became independent, this position would be called into question:

• The Scottish banking sector would be exceptionally large compared to the size of an independent Scotland’s economy, making it more vulnerable to financial shocks than it is as part of the larger UK. The assets of the whole UK banking sector (including Scotland’s banks) are around 492 per cent of total UK GDP.7 This is large by international standards, but as the financial crisis showed, still manageable. By contrast, Scottish banks have assets totalling around 1254 per cent of an independent Scotland’s GDP.8 In comparison, at the end of 2007, Icelandic banks had assets equivalent to 880 per cent of GDP – a major contributor to the cause and impact of the financial crisis in Iceland. Cyprus, which has had serious financial difficulties more recently, has total banking assets around 700 per cent of GDP ...

The size of the UK economy relative to its financial sector means that even if a very large firm fails, the UK Government can intervene to ensure that consumers and businesses are protected. The UK has credible institutions, such as the Bank of England, which acts as lender of last resort for the UK financial system. The exceptionally large and highly-concentrated financial sector of an independent Scotland would be likely to increase the risks, to markets, firms and consumers, of financial services firms operating in an independent Scotland.

And here is what it says about consumers' savings being protected.

The UK’s Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) pays compensation to savers if their banks fail. It guarantees consumer deposits in a UK bank up to £85,000. The scheme, and any compensation payouts, is funded through charges on the banks and financial firms that are covered by the FSCS. Across the whole UK a very large number of firms are included. This means that the burden of funding the FSCS is spread across many firms. The FSCS is also backed by the UK Government’s established and broad fiscal base, which can provide short term funding to the scheme if needed. The UK Government lent £20 billion to the FSCS during the recent financial crisis. A financial compensation scheme in an independent Scotland would cover far fewer firms, and would be dominated by two large banks. If one of those banks were to fail any similar scheme would struggle to compensate savers.

Over the past week Ed Miliband and his colleagues have – rightly – been hammering David Cameron for running around like a headless chicken trying to placate his party on Europe. The Prime Minister was, he said, “weak” and “panicked”.

Well, David Cameron hasn’t been weak and panicked over gay marriage. He’s been brave and principled. As had Ed Miliband and Labour, up until the past 24 hours.

Labour sources are advancing several excuses for mucking around with this week’s vote, all of them rubbish. The first is that this is a free vote, and they are not officially supporting the Loughton amendment at all. But Ed Miliband has allowed a free vote on the same-sex marriage bill as a whole, and that hasn’t stopped him telling his shadow cabinet and his MPs what he expects them to do, taking credit for its passage, not to mention telling the gay press he wants “Labour to lead where in the past it has failed to do so” on LGBT issues.

A second argument Labour is advancing is the Prime Minister is actively using the Loughton amendment as an opportunity to pull legislation that he knows the bulk of his party opposes. “The Tories are in such a state they’re trying to blame us,” said one source, “We are not going to let them use this as an excuse to wreck the Bill.” Fine. Then defeat the Loughton amendment. No amendment, no excuse for dropping gay marriage.

Labour can’t have it both ways. Last week they were mocking the Prime Minister for running away from his party. Now they’re mocking him for standing up to it.

Some Labour figures agree. Here's Tony McNulty, the former Home Office minister.

Maria Miller, the culture secretary and equalities minister, was on the Today programme earlier explaining why she was so opposed to the Tim Loughton amendment extending civil partnerships to heterosexual couples.

I think it would make a fundamental difference to the passage of the bill because what the amendment is trying to do is to import in a very complicated concept, which took more than 200 clauses to explain in the original civil partnership bill, into a bill which is all about extending marriage, and it’s trying to do that in just two very short amendments. It introduces complexity which would not only, I believe, delay the passage of the bill through parliament ... Look, I want to be seeing marriages being undertaken under this new bill as early as next summer, and to actually put in at this stage such a fundamental change, I believe, risks that and it risks significant delay.

And she gave some examples of the practical problems the Loughton amendment would throw up.

Let me give you two very practical examples – issues around the way pensions would work. If you create a whole new cadre of individuals called civil partners who are opposite-sex couples, we have to consider in detail how that would work for pensions.

Equally, the issue of marriage is not an issue that we dictate from Westminster for Scotland and Northern Ireland. There are considerable issues; indeed, Northern Ireland have decided not to go forward with same-sex marriage. Therefore, we would need to open up those negotiations.

The issues around international recognition of heterosexual civil partnerships is also something we need to consider.

MPs are debating gay marriage (or equal marriage, as campaigners prefer to call it) again today. The marriage (same sex couples) bill is back in the Commons for its two-day report stage. The measure has never been popular with traditionalist Tories - some 136 Conservative MPs voted against it at second reading (although it passed with a 225-vote majority because of the overwhelming Labour and Lib Dem support) - and today we’re going to see more evidence of party divisions on this matter. To make matters worse, the debate takes place only 48 hours after it was claimed that one of David Cameron’s closes confidantes thinks Tory activists are all “mad, swivel-eyed loons”. Cameron’s relationship with the party he leads is more frayed than ever.

Just because the bill got a large majority at second reading, that does not mean that it is safe. MPs will vote on various amendments today, including one, tabled by the Conservative MP Tim Loughton, that is seen as a potential wrecking amendment. Loughton is opposed to gay marriage, but he is tabling an amendment saying civil partnerships should be extended to heterosexual couples. As Nicholas Watt explains in his Guardian splash today, ministers in favour of the bill are saying this could cost £4bn and delay introduction of the entire bill by up to two years. What is not clear is whether they are saying this because their concerns are genuine, or whether it is because they are looking for an excuse to drop the bill.

I’ll be covering the debate in detail, right up to the key vote at 10pm.

As usual, I’ll also be covering all the breaking political news as well as looking at the papers and bringing you the best politics from the web. I’ll post a lunchtime summary at before 1pm, and another in the afternoon.